So, our society has been influenced by our biology?
S A M,
Both ways. The point being made is that our society also affects our physiology. (See the Dawkins thread in Nat. Sci.)
It is an argument about the metanarrative whether or not you think it is a part of metaphysics. I think that this is important since society is not a physical thing. Now, I’m not skeptical of the existence of metanarratives, nor do I think anyone ought be (that road leads to postmodernist wastes of time). But I do feel that we need to define what we are talking about before we continue. More specifically, I think that society can be modeled as a metasystem in the same way our body can be understood as a metasystem.
Now, as I made clear, all major religions take this metasystem into account – indeed, I would argue that many have a firmer grasp of the social metasystem than they do do the biological one; however, any religious individual worth listening to also recognizes the biological one.
Now the point of the OP is best outlined in the Tony the Tiger section. The problem with the argument is that showing that Tony the Tiger is unnecessary to sell Frosted Flakes (as any knock-off brand will show you), this argument doesn’t actually argue against the existence of Tony the Tiger. It side-steps the issue entirely. So, if one were to discuss the issue with a Tony the Tiger believer, suggesting that Frosted Flakes would be good whether or not Tony was present isn’t actually relevant to the question of whether one ought believe in Tony the Tiger.
Hey Mas,
Sure, but then I would say “Why did the largest ethnic base become the largest…?” - and then point at their religion as one of the culprits in their ascention.
Okay, okay, so I did get a bit beauty-contest-babe “I wish for world peace” for a moment. I’m only human.
Hey Xunzian,
Okay, I shouldn’t have used the religion=conflict bit. Presses too many buttons that I’d rather leave unpressed on this thread. As you say, it’s been done. All I’ll say is, I can give up religion, I can’t give up being a Jew, or a nigger, or white trash. “God grant me the wisdom to know what I can change and what I cannot…” etc.
Sure, the essence. But if you take away the clown, it’s not the same burger experience is it…?
I’m not coming out here definitively either way, I thought I was being careful enough in the header post. I’m not saying that the epigenic benefits of a religious belief set denies the existence of God, nor the tenuous importance of God as ‘first cause’ - simply that it accounts for the fact that religion is so widespread in the world.
I’m saying just because everyone eats spaghetti, it doesn’t automatically mean there is a spaghetti-monster watching over them from a divine plate of bolognese sauce.
Tertiary Mind is right, the Roman history I’ve read lists the ‘divinity’ of the emperor and the cult of this ‘living God’ a core factor in the empire’s success. Well, that and the Pax Romana - and a bunch of guys with swords and eagles.
Pff, Xunzian, straw man builder.
My argument is: We have A, a supposed property of C, which through its own nature assists human enterprise to give rise to B. And because A leads to B of its own accord, C is not proved by the existance of A.
Out of time, sorry, more answers later.
Ummmm … genetic fitness best adapted to the relevant environment maybe? OH WAIT, I’m doing it again … going for the obvious empirical answer instead of proscribing some “unseen” aspect as a model descriptor for the obvious.
::replaces dunce cap::
(Side note: **I tried to warn you and tentative earlier, Xunzi does mass reading, and his brain is increasing in its annoying capabilities in both factual dissemination and logical proposition. He’s a real bugger … )
This question really hasn’t really been answered and since I tend to focus on the idea that those who dominate are always worth taking a closer look, I’m going to stand over in Xunzian’s corner (I think 
) to make an observation about whether religion can actually dominate. If it really has that much to do with it, I mean.
It seems obvious that random variation in religious belief and practices occurs, since it’s the nature of the beast to respond to historical events by going through the adaptive process that tabula mentioned. So I suppose one could theorize that religions exist because they produce social stability. The multiplicity and variety of religions around the world supports that idea. Also, when there’s social upheaval, you find that the strife is often couched in religious terms, maybe because people are ardently seeking the stabilization it provides. It’s interesting that 10 or 15 years ago, most Americans didn’t find much reason to identify themselves as Christian or otherwise in any blatantly public or political way, regardless of their religious persuasion.
But I’ve also read historians and anthropologists who claim that the movers and shakers behind the events that shape or influence history are often small groups of people acting from motives and interests that don’t necessarily reflect the prevailing ideologies or religions of the culture they come from. Or that the ideologies and religions exist separately from the social upheaval. Or if you consider Kosovo and Bosnia, where there was long-term ethnic and religious tolerance that went all to hell for a while…and now seems to have resumed, more or less.
So something happens like planes flying into a building, and there’s this shift (or at least a perceived shift, which is pretty much the same thing) in social stability and a ‘conflict’ is born that seems to be the pitting of religious ideologies against each other. Yet Osama bin Laden, along with a number of the other guys who flew the planes, comes from Saudi Arabia. And still you can, without too much effort, find photos of Bush or Cheney shaking hands with the Saudi royals. It’s the elites interacting with whomever best serves their interests. Really, in that light, what does Christianity or Islam have to do with the fissure? Maybe religion or cultural identity frame how we discuss what’s going on, but they’re not the real reasons behind everything that goes on.
Tab,
Agreed, but again, I haven’t seen that sort of proof used by anyone aside from the fringe groups that I mentioned earlier. The problem with creating an argument to counter wackos is that the wackos won’t care, because that is their nature, they are wackos . . . and the moderate people won’t care either because they already recognize the wackos as wackos. However, in the process you will alienate a lot of the moderates because you are presenting your view as something that can counteract their positions.
Mastriani,
You’ve got me on one hell of a wobbly pivot here man. Not nice, not nice at and don’t think that compliments will get you anywhere! I will say that the situation that you described is a good candidate for being modeled by memes as opposed to genes. From a genetic standpoint, there is so little variation within the human population that a genetic description of why some societies fail and others thrive is unsatisfactory. For example, there is more genetic variation within the races than across the races, which basically means that our social concept of the “races” consists of overlapping paraphyletic groups, from a genetic standpoint. While I am unaware of any studies, I think that given the information we already have, it is reasonable to expect similar finding with respect to various civilizations. This makes sense, too, if you think about things like boarder communities and all that.
Now, clearly genetics do play a certain role. A recent example would be how autistic individuals tend to be really damn good at computers, which is great for them and for us as a society that benefits from their works. But think about how much we benefit from non-genetic constructs like the computer programs they have made using computer languages that have been constructed (both memes). Speaking of language, holy crap, that is one powerful freakin’ meme! Language allows for a great deal and the nature of the language as spoken* is completely memetic!
Just as cell-phone design can be described as memes, so too can the progress of any technology. That is where the sexy part of it enters the picture. I’m not going to defend the Guns, Germs, and Steel hypothesis, but think about it for a second. It was the European predisposition to violence due to the instability of their day-to-day lives (both memetic considerations stemming from their physical and political conditions) that let them look at the crappy canon and beautiful fireworks that the Chinese had built and go, “Holy crap, we can kill the shit out of everybody with these things!” Genetics has nothing to do with it! With the germs, it was the various memes that made Europeans so adverse to bathing as opposed to pretty much the rest of the world, as well as their love of living in absolute filth for reasons that I can’t fathom that killed off anybody who didn’t have an awesome genetic stockpile of disease resistance, so here we see memes effecting genes through natural selection. Steel, again, is pretty much the same story as guns. Other people had steel, but the Europeans knew how to use it to kill the crap out of everybody.
*as opposed to the concept of Language itself, we’ll leave the genetic component of that to cunning linguists and dashing geneticists
coughcoughbaceria,germinfluencefromenvironmentinquestioncoughcough
Haven’t we had this discussion before? Yes, yes, I believe we have and “meme’s” ass.
High yellow skin in Asians, strange there is a bacterial component that accounts for this in the environment.
Fat ass, bloated Americans, strange that it was … how do I say this … empirically proven that the bacteria in the environment of North America set up genetic disposition towards obesity.
Nevermind, I said nothing.
::pulls dunce cap all the way down::
True, true. But in the case of the European’s prodigious resistance to disease we need only realize that they never bathed and covered their streets in human feces. It was the bacteria that was actually doing the selection, to be sure, but they never would have had the chance if they had actually bathed or, err, not dumped their waste out onto the street. That is the point, the meme of the terrible hygiene created a selection pressure for the genetic end of the argument. Coat yourself in superbugs and you’ll be able to do some serious damage to everybody else. Guns, Germs, and Steel was just an easy example because it is popular, but there are others.
Gads, I give. The meme is superman. No point arguing for receptor sites due to the bacterial aminos.
Hey Mas.
Arrgh. What is the most important enviromental factor within a competitive, finite resourced arena… MEMBERS OF YOUR OWN F**KING SPECIES. Sorry. Now look what you did - I’m both shouting and swearing. Shame on me.
Nah mate, you have simply replaced “What could actually be” with “What I want there to be, or rather not be, 'cos otherwise I’ll have wasted about 10,000 words of my life.” S’okay, everybody does it here. Except me of course. 
Hey Ingenium.
No choccies for you Missy.
Yeah - pity no-one answered that question. My point was that say one religion is the ‘one’ ‘true’ religion - and all the rest are bollocks - then why, with a living, Ark-of-covenent-lending, all-powerful, Raiders-of-the-lost-ark-type deity behind it, didn’t that one true religion kick some heretic butt…? Why so many, if they are not really the same, using the same social levers to much the same effect…?
Coherence. Increased group identity. Clarity of us and them. Comfort.
This is what I mean - for the purposes of the current argument - it doesn’t matter what forces shape events behind the scene, their memetic exposure is always, and perhaps necessarily so, less than that of a extreme high profile event like the twin towers.
It is the biggest, most visible memes that dominate the group mind. And God is about as big as you can get. If you have a society that really believes - the effects of religion on that group mind would have been massive.
For example - you meet me in the street, and I, without introduction say “Hey you woman - give me your credit-card, I need to make an urgent phonecall.” Or whatever.
You’d tell me exactly where to get off.
But now imagine our eyes locked and I was Brad fucking Pitt. In the flesh. With that smile. And those shoulders. And that voice. You’d probably give it to me wouldn’t you. Maybe even bat those lashes of yours.
Now. Imagine I was the Pope. Imagine I was Jesus. Imagine I was God.
Imagine the respect such persons, such ideologies were afforded back in the day when people believed wholeheartedly that disease was brought about by warlocks and the evil eye.
They are the final, and always necessary, straw. The one that justifies sufficiently.
Xunz/Mas, Just a small point.
The old ‘we are all the same genetically’ business. Sure - vetos any real group vs. group genetic-led advantage. Or rather it would if you just took the results of the Human Genome Project as the be all and end all.
But it’s not is it…?
I can write down the same thing as Joe, the exact same sentence, but using British English rather than American English. The result is bugger all difference, and absolutely no difference at all in meaning.
But if we were to up the bandwith - and speak those sentences aloud, using whatever intonation and emphasis, any accompanying facial expression we wished…
And suddenly the difference is potentially immense.
It is the same - number of sites available for metylation , degrees of methylation present - that turns the “Aww gee shucks we are all jus’ the same” business on its head. There can be difference in the methylation of identical twin genomes to the extent that one gets persistant, recursive cancer and the other doesn’t. A difference of genomic expression brought about simply from different lifestyles.
I don’t really get the last bit xunz - I shouldn’t bother with this because the wackos won’t believe me and the moderates will be offended…?
Offended by what…? Exactly…? This is written for here. If I was going to do the whole “End of Faith” bit, I’d probably write a little more formally.
I’m just saying that since you are writing for ILP, writing a post that (rightfully) put the wackos in their place won’t really attract that much attention because people think they are wackos. But in presenting an anti-wacko argument to ILP as a whole, it seems as though your target audience in the philosophically inclined. Since you aren’t arguing against their position, but are instead using a position alien to their’s as a means to discuss their faith, they’ll get understandably bothered.
Doesn’t really create a fertile ground for discussion and then what are you left with? Crusty bastards like Mas and I, that’s what.
As for the genetic bit, now I am genuinely confused. When a gene is methylated, it is off (as opposed to down-regulated), and the description of genetic homogeneity was a demonstration of the vitality and viability of memes. Now I’m just confused. Are we even talking about the same thing here?
Tab, you must have missed my post, you asked me a question and I answered . the Answer is No it does not have to be a creature aka god. An Icon yes and maybe.
Xunz,
Think about the scale being inferred here. Yes, methylation is on-off. In a complex organism, this adaptive feature means that the possible actions and interactions of genetic variation is proscribed and the organism will genetically adapt in other ways to its environment, or ultimately fail over several generations.
If society is a large scale extension of that organism, then it isn’t the genetic off-on position of any particular cell (me), but an aggregate of sufficient other cells that change the physiology of that society. So while methylation is on- off, at a societal scale it is “down regulating”. Macro -vs - micro perspective.
Part of this discussion is being lost because the OP was a “look at the forest” statement, and while a forest is made of trees, too much effort is being spent dissecting and identifying every last tree. (Mas will appreciate this)
In a desparate attempt to get back to the original perspective, the point made is that man would have created God with or without one. It was a memetic necessity for society to continue its evolutionary course. The need for God(s) has occurred in every society in one form or another. This isn’t an attempt to deny a creator, but to see that the attendant religions would have been invented, God or not. That it shakes the roots of any particular belief system isn’t necessarily good or bad, it just is.
See, to me suggesting that if god didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent one doesn’t actually shake anything and that is all this post has done. It is an old argument, one that has been used both ways, and it says nothing. That is my point.
That there is some misinformed science being thrown around to legitimate this already dubious position is bothersome on a different level, but that by-and-large isn’t the point.
Gads 
Don’t mind me, I’m just over here in the re-education facility 
A methylated gene is off. But, since we are talking big people, with lotsa cells, it is the number of methylated cells that matter. If I’ve got say 0.01% of my lung tissue methylated re: anti cancer thru passive smoking, but some other full time puffing billy has succcessfully methylated 1% then he’s 1000 times more likely to get cancer.
Your description of genomal homogenuity strikes at the degree of effectiveness epigenic factors can produce. I’m simply saying there is more space to manoever, so external factors, memes - acting via proxy of brain state or behavioural change - have a greater leeway to induce negative/posative difference between people.
Hey Xunzian. Nice motivational skills you got there. A real encouragement to discussion. Anyway. This subject is another one off the list.
- Astrophysics pushes God out of the nitty gritty of universe designing, beyond maybe pushing the start button.
- Evolution pushes God out of the nitty gritty of designing sentient life.
- Now epigenics pushes God out of even the nitty gritty of religion.
I’m mean, poor guy - what’s he got left to do…? That crossword can only last so long.
Fine mate, play the “I’m a better scientist than you” card - in fact every post you’ve made has included an element of “oh Tab you don’y know what the fuck you’re talking about so why don’tcha stop wasting everybody’s time with your crackpot theories…?” Rather than stating what the ‘real deal’ is on any actual readable level.
I go to great pains to make what I say both understandable by any level of reader, and entertaining. You just sound like some guy who’s got other stuff to do.
Go do it, if it’s that much of a chore. ILP will go on.
Xunz,
You say that there is misinformed science supporting a dubious position. I would suggest that it is simply incomplete science. The jury is still out.
Are you sure that you aren’t just clinging to ‘tradition’? 
Mas,
Awww, poor baby! It’s OK. The nightmare will go away in the morning. Or maybe tomorrow… or… well, sooner or later.
Hey Kris, Icons/Gods, there is no difference, as long as someone believes, it is all the same.
Sorry - A lotta flak to dodge around here. Plus Goddamned babies refusing to eat solids. A question for you Mother Goddess - any tips for getting baby to eat her food…? At the moment she throws a fit after the third spoon or so, and then holds out like crazy for Mommy’s breast. It’s driving us crazy.
Not to be a divisive ass, but no he’s not. Like Tabby, he posts, I read and use his knowledge to spring board into more understanding and knowledge.
He’s telling you that current empiricism has uncovered more of the “process”, and even then, the molecular/atomic level isn’t being touched in these discourses … which is yet another “bit” to the “parts” of the “whole”.
Tabby must have fell a little short on serotonin production during the course of the night … or he could have too much sodium in his diet …
Xunzi is the humble sort, and doesn’t come with hidden agendas towards sublime invectives … but it is his “business” to know things at a cellular level … and personally, although I hate what he says sometimes, if he tells me I’m wrong, I check what he says, and find out I’m wrong …
But then, I’m the one with the drool cup in this group. Oh goody, a short bus, more windows to lick … be back later.